JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against judgment and award dated 04.06.2010, passed by learned L.A. Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in case No. Civil Misc.(L.A.) 48 of 2008, whereunder the learned L.A. Judge while deciding the reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act enhanced the compensation towards price of acquired land from Rs.80,000/- per kani to Rs.2,00,000/- per kani for ‘bastu’ class of land and from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per kani for ‘tilla’ class of land. 2. Heard learned CGC, Mr. B. Majumder for the appellant and learned counsel, Mr. D.K. Biswas for respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 3. Brief fact is that by Notification No.F.9(2)/REV/ ACQ/V/ 2003 dated 17.12.2003 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the L.A. Act, followed by Declaration vide No.F.9(2)/REV/ACQ/V/ 2003 dated 11.02.2004, issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, land measuring 21.71 acres of different class belonged to different landholders at Mouja Mainama under Chailengta T.K., Longtharai Valley Sub-Division, Dhalai District, was acquired for the construction of National Highway-44/A from Manu to Simlowng. In due process, L.A. Collector after hearing the parties under Section 11 of the L.A. Act by order dated 02.05.2005 assessed compensation for the acquisition of different class of land at the rates as follows: Sl. No. Class of land Rate(per kani) 1 Nal/Lunga/Bastu/Chara Rs.80,000/- 2 Bagan/Bhiti Rs.60,000/- 3 Tilla/Pukur/Pukurpar/Layek Patit Rs.40,000/- 4 Path/Rastha/Khelarmath/Bidyalaya Rs.39,000/- 5 Dokan Rs.3,00,000/- 4. In the process, land measuring 0.17 acres of ‘bastu’ class and 0.51 acres of ‘tilla’ class belonged to respondent No.1(hereinafter mentioned as referring claimant) was acquired and compensation for ‘bastu’ class of land at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani and ‘tilla’ class of land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per kani was paid. It may be mentioned here that compensation for the house, trees and other structure on the acquired land was also paid and the landholder i.e. the referring claimant received the compensation under protest with a request to refer the case to the L.A. Judge for determination of actual market price of the acquired land at the date of acquisition. Accordingly, L.A. Collector made the reference and it was registered as case No. Civil Misc.(L.A.) 48 of 2008 in the Court of learned L.A. Judge(District Judge), North Tripura, Kailashahar. 5. Accordingly, L.A. Collector made the reference and it was registered as case No. Civil Misc.(L.A.) 48 of 2008 in the Court of learned L.A. Judge(District Judge), North Tripura, Kailashahar. 5. The referring claimant i.e. the respondent No.1 submitted claim statement before the L.A. Judge claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per kani towards price of land. The L.A. Collector submitted counter statement contending that the compensation determined by the L.A. Collector was appropriate and there should not be any enhancement of the price. Respondent No.2 i.e. the requiring department also submitted a counter statement supporting the assessment made by the L.A. Collector. 6. In course of trial, the referring claimant i.e. the respondent No.1 examined himself as PW1 and relied on two sale instance i.e. Sale Deed no.1-63 dated 26.02.2002 and Sale Deed No.1-64 dated 26.02.2002. Those were marked as Exbt.1 series. On behalf of the L.A. Collector one witness, namely Sri Arabinda Deb was examined and documents, such as the list of sale deeds considered by the L.A. Collector, valuation chart of the office of the District Magistrate, etc. were proved and marked as Exbt.A. series. 7. At the conclusion of trial learned L.A. Judge enhanced the compensation towards price of ‘bastu’ class of land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani and ‘tilla’ class of land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per kani. 8. Aggrieved, the requiring department i.e. the present appellant preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned L.A. Judge. 9. It is submitted by learned CGC, Mr. Majumder that the learned L.A. Judge discarded the sale instances proved by the referring claimant and without assigning any reason enhanced the compensation toward price of land abnormally. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 i.e. the referring claimant submitted that it was ‘bastu’ class of land situated by the side of the Manu-Chailengta road which was declared as National Highway-44/A and the land is valuable land since situated by the roadside. It is also submitted that taking into account the potentiality of the land the L.A. Judge rightly enhanced the compensation. 10. There is no dispute regarding the quantum as well as the classification of the acquired land. The L.A. Collector fixed compensation for ‘bastu’ class of land at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani and ‘tilla’ class of land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per kani. 10. There is no dispute regarding the quantum as well as the classification of the acquired land. The L.A. Collector fixed compensation for ‘bastu’ class of land at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani and ‘tilla’ class of land at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per kani. While determining compensation, the L.A. Collector has taken into consideration some earlier judgments in respect of acquisition of land at Mouja Mainama for the purpose of railway line. In the deposition of DW1, it has been reflected that the L.A. Collector fixed the compensation taking into account some earlier judgments of the L.A. Judge in respect of compensation fixed for acquisition of land under same mouja which was acquired for railway line. The claimant stated that the acquired land was situated by the side of the Manu-Chailengta road which was declared as National Highway and for widening the road the acquisition has been made. According to the claimant, the acquired land was most potential land and so the compensation was rightly fixed. 11. After going through Exbt.1 series I find that those two deeds were of very small pieces of land i.e. 0.02 acres at a price of Rs.25,000/-. But there is neither oral nor any documentary evidence to show the location of those plots of land under the transaction to consider that the sale instances were of comparable land. No doubt, consideration of a sale instance of a comparable land is the best method to fix compensation towards price of land for compulsory acquisition. Burden lies on the referring claimant to show that less compensation was paid from the existing market value. The referring claimant was supposed to show that those two sale deeds marked as Exbt.1 series were of comparable land but there is no evidence to that effect. Learned L.A. Judge, however, enhanced the compensation and it is true that he has not assigned any reason in his judgment while enhancing the compensation. He has mentioned that in the list of documents submitted by the L.A. Collector marked as Exbt.A series, Sale Deed No.1-166(D) dated 08.09.2003 reflects value of Rs.1,20,000/- per kani of ‘nal’ and ‘chara’ class of land. So, ‘bastu’ class of land, definitely, would be valued more than that. He has mentioned that in the list of documents submitted by the L.A. Collector marked as Exbt.A series, Sale Deed No.1-166(D) dated 08.09.2003 reflects value of Rs.1,20,000/- per kani of ‘nal’ and ‘chara’ class of land. So, ‘bastu’ class of land, definitely, would be valued more than that. Taking a reference from that deed he has enhanced the compensation towards ‘bastu’ class of land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per kani and ‘tilla’ class of land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per kani. Some sorts of assumption and presumption and some reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence and materials on LA APP. NO.56 OF 2013 Page 7 of 7 record are inevitable while determining compensation for acquisition of land. Though there is no direct evidence adduced by the referring claimant supporting enhancement, but the document which was considered by the L.A. Collector itself shows that there were transactions at a higher price for ‘nal’ and ‘chara’ class of land and so the ‘bastu’ class of land which was situated by the side of the road might be valued more than ‘nal’ and ‘chara’ class of land. Therefore, I find no justification at all to interfere in the enhancement made by the learned L.A. Judge in respect of ‘bastu’ and ‘tilla’ class of land and hence the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly it stands dismissed. 12. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.